Gun Rights Examiner Mar 19
Do concealed handguns contribute to air pollution? There are more than a dozen national parks and wildlife refuges in Georgia, and now your right to bear arms in Georgia’s national parks and refuges has been swept away by a federal judge in Washington DC. Yesterday, (3-19) United States District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered Kenneth L. Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, not to implement the new regulation that permits loaded, concealed firearms on national park and wildlife refuges until the Court can make a final decision on whether to enjoin the new regulation permanently. This new regulation had taken effect on January 9, 2009 and removed a ban on such weapons.
The inaptly named "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" sued three days before the new rule took effect, claiming that the Department of the Interior, which oversees national parks and wildlife refuges, had failed to study the environmental impact of the new rule. Judge Kollar-Kotelly agreed, finding that the Department of the Interior and the Secretary "abdicated their Congressionally mandated obligation to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts."
So what is the environmental impact that a concealed, holstered pistol might have in a park? Judge Kollar-Kotelly answers this question by explaining "that persons who possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges will use them for any number of reasons, including self-defense against persons and animals." In other words, Judge Kollar-Kotelly believes that your right to self defense is harmful to the environment. As if to emphasize the point, Judge Kollar-Kotelly states on page 32 of the opinion that the question is not "whether persons carrying concealed firearms will use them more often than the general public, but rather, whether they will use them at all." (Emphasis in original).
"If the firearms will be used, then the Final Rule will obviously have some impact on the environment, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative."
Oddly, the "environmental impact" is not lead poisoning or anything else recognizable as environmental pollution, but a subjective fear that some Brady members have of Americans bearing arms. Several Brady members "are now concerned for their personal safety in parks and refuges and cannot fully enjoy their visits to certain national parks or wildlife refuges because they feel less safe." Judge Kollar-Kotelly held that such irrational fears constituted "irreparable harm."
On the other hand, Judge Kollar-Kotelly declared that her decision will create "no substantial harm" to the right to bear arms. Since the rule banning weapons was in place for 25 years, there is no reason why Americans "would be substantially harmed" by waiting until the Court makes a final decision on the park regulation.
There is no word yet on whether national park rangers will arrest when they discover concealed pistols.
David Codrea, Gun Rights Examiner, is also reporting on this federal decision.
Dave Workman, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner, reports that the Brady Campaign is misrepresenting the process that resulted in the new parks rule.
Randi Menitor, National Parks Examiner, presents the view that, for "now, it’s a good thing that the U.S. District Court blocked the ill-researched and hastily passed concealed carry rule." Until the decision on the merits, "people who fear gun owners can continue to visit the national parks and feel safe."
(my 2 cents)
This would be laughable in a common-sense driven world. There is nothing more transparent than the Left's concern for others, be it in the disadvantaged, or in the environment. It's as if they do something in the name of either, it should certainly get the sheeple's approval.
Ultimately, why is gun-ownership so deeply frowned upon by these folks?
I think it sort of serves as a "litmus-test" on virtually every other issue that involves 2 core principles they stand behind, both of which amount to nothing more than Marxist Socialism: 1. The redistribution of wealth and collectivism, and 2. More centralized power for their own administration.
...and they wanna call me PARANOID?
Feedin' the till, for the "Stimulus" Bill (since 1974)